Cops and Robbers

[OETKB]

Remember as a kid you played this game and thought your bullets only got the "bad guys." Many of the world's actors in violent struggles whether in the ME or elsewhere seem to have some belief in this concept. Therefore I propose a change in names so each side can feel comfortable or disgusted about choosing warfare to settle basic issues of survival. Let's call them all "retaliators." So like the game of "tic tac toe" featured in the movie, "War Games," there is no winner.

Unfortunately we happen to be stuck with a bunch of leaders who are retaliators. So I ask, where are the peacemakers?

The language of beligerants contains excessive bravado, such as when Hamas says they will destroy the State of Israel. This is a very hollow threat and frankly I think everyone knows it. However the other side acts on it as if it is going to happen tomorrow and it bombs away.

It was not too long ago that Mao Tze Tung was telling the US that he would bury us. This scenario has changed some 180 degrees. How did that happen?

Just looking at our difficulties in Iraq and Afganistan should be enough proof that overpowering a country(very weak ones militarily at that) is not a pushover project.

Lining up with one side or the other is fruitless. Each thinks they have God on their side but the destruction that follows from this only reveals the Devil's bargain.

Any takers for a Peace Plan? What should it look like?

[everythingsxen]

1. There will never be peace

Ever. Humans are just very advanced monkeys and like the chimp we evolve from are brutal, savage, territorial and prone to jealousy.

All you can do is be the best person you can be. Hoping for peace and love, non-violent protests.. all that jazz? It will never work and never change anything.

Spend your life trying to heal the sick, protecting those who cannot protect themselves, generally saivng people's lives and/or improving the quality of people's lives.. that's all you can do.

[OETKB]

2. Couldn't have stated it better

You have managed to summarize the neocon philosophy very well. However as far as I know many of the nations that use to regulary reap havoc on each other are not doing so today. Don't you believe in evolution?

[everythingsxen]

3. I do believe in evolution..

however I also believe that people are, for the most part, selfish beasts that care only about themselves.

Peace cannot be imposed. It has to come from within the individual. In a few thousand years we have not done it. Maybe in another few thousand we will; until then we are going to be a very war-like species.

[OETKB]

4. What do you base this on?

You, of course, have supplied no real evidence to that thought process. However given what you believe what road should the players be taking to stop the fighting or do you accept it as inevitable? Being war like is not the survival factor for humans. It depends on our brain power. Unfortunately everything we do has to be learned. We have no instincts of survival. Somewhere along the line making warfare was discovered and it is going to take some time to undo it. For some it worked too well for centuries. This is why, I believe, it has taken so long to seek peace. It was Thomas Paine who said, "Time makes more converts than reason."

[sgxnk]

5. um ,wrong - not Mao

it was not mao who said "we will bury you"

it was Kruschev

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you

also referenced in a nifty sting song "russians" iirc

[everythingsxen]

7. Correct, it was Kruschev and it was never meant as a threat

It was meant to be something along the lines of "we will outlive you"; a case of Good Vodka, Bad Meat.

[sgxnk]

8. that may

be true. wasn't my point. i don't remember the context

[everythingsxen]

6. I could cite...

the works of Jane Goodall and her work with chimps, along with the scholarly work of many others as proof toward my claim humans do in fact have survival instincts and that aggression is an outgrowth from it.

Pick an article: http://www.google.com/search?q=Instincts+%2Bhumans+%2Baggression&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

Whether or not we are "war-like", I will leave you to determine for yourself: http://www.google.com/search?q=Instincts+%2Bhumans+%2Bwar&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

However given that philosophers more qualified than you or I have been quibbling over the question for several centuries at least, I do not think it is worth arguing over. I have seen all I need to see of man's inhumanity to man and have made my decision. You have the more hopeful perspective that somehow by teaching everyone that fighting is bad, we will have a world full of happiness. I wish your POV was right, but I cannot see it. I do agree with Mr. Paine though and as I said in my initial reply to your post that in a few centuries, perhaps, peace may be possible.

[sgxnk]

9. instincts

i recall disagreeing with a grammar school teacher over this very issue. oh so many years ago... :l

he claimed that animals have instincts, humans do not. i found this absurd. we ARE animals. a highly evolved animal, but an animal nonetheless. i saw no evidence then, and none now, that we have evolved PAST the point where there is no instinctual behavior

i realize that many in the social-science left (unfortunately) for many many years advanced a tabula rasa theory of human behavior. that model is flawed. it is also definitely anti-scientific. it reminds me of the same idiocy i see from "intelligent design" people in regards to the anti-science bias. it's similar to the school of thought that ALL gender differentiation is socially constructed. the fields of biology, and specifically endocrinology render that statement laughably false.

the reason people want to deny human instincts is that it elevates human beings into an eminently mallable lifeform, one that is more prone to behavior modification. one would expect this from somebody wedded to an external locus of control mindset. humans have evolved to a level where (hopefully) we can rise above our baser instincts, instincts that may have served us well in "the jungle" (see: law thereof), but not in CIVILIZED society, where survival of the fittest should not mean bludgeoning our neighbors just because we can. we recognize we DO have many base instincts, but that the purpose of civilized society is that we can band together under a system of mutually agreed rules, rules that respect people's differences and individual autonomy, and protect the weak from the bullies.

regardless, it's hella bogus - the theory that humans are instinct-free